August 16, 2017

Reversal By Appellate Court AND Opposition’s Own Positions Sealed The Propriety Of Post-Arbitration Fee Request Denial.

Harshad & Nasir Corp. v. Global Sign Systems, Case Nos. B269427 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 15, 2017) (published) is an interesting case involving arbitral review, scope of issues under an arbitration agreement, statute of frauds, and arbitral addition of parties nuances. However, for purposes of our fee blog, the rulings which count were the trial court’s denial of requests by (1) the previous winning arbitration party, Global, for fees incurred in post-arbitration proceedings before the trial court resulting in confirmation of the award against FCC, and (2) Affiliates for fees incurred in post-arbitration proceedings before the trial court resulting in vacation of the award in favor of Global. The trial judge basically ruled that the arbitrator was the one to make these fee awards.

On the merits, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order granting Global’s petition to confirm the arbitration award against FCC and affirmed the trial court’s order granting the Affiliates’ petition to vacate the arbitration award as to them. Although agreeing technically that the appeals from the fees denial orders were premature given that the parties would return to the arbitrator for further rulings, the 2/1 DCA decided that the appeal from unappealable orders should be treated as a petitions for writs of mandate in order to circumvent needless future actions. Specifically, given the merits rulings, Global was not a prevailing party in post-arbitration proceedings entitled to recover any fees, whether before the trial court or the arbitrator. However, here is the clincher: FFC and Affiliates took the position that no one was entitled to post-arbitration fees regardless of the merits outcome such that they conceded no fee entitlement. With that, the post-arbitration fee issues were resolved conclusively! Whew, one issue down!